VA-Poltern beim Ibiza 6L / zu hartes Cupra-Fahrwerk | Posts 32+

Hi,
eins, denke ich, habt ihr noch vergessen, was viel einfacheres. The tires.
Ich hab gerade eine Reklamation hinter mir. Wegen einem wahnsinns Schwimmen meiner 2 neuen Pirelli Zero Nero (205/45-16) auf meinem ASZ 6L Ibiza Sport. Eigentlich war das mein Lieblingsreifen. Too bad, too bad.
Due to a complaint, I now have 4 Bridgestone tires. They perform much less comfortably, and they also have slightly less grip.
"I used to think that the FR suspension, which was installed some time ago, was to blame for the lack of comfort, because I actually prefer a slightly firmer ride. Now I think it was mainly the Pirellis, as they probably have a higher inherent damping."
Since I installed the Bridgestone tires, I've been experiencing a significant increase in rattling from the front axle.

Best regards,
Jörg

"Stammtischparolen" also common sayings, also suggest that for some time now, the sidewalls of the more sporty Pirelli series have become noticeably softer. Several young and dynamic drivers ("hotshots") have been complaining about this for about 1.5 years. It is first and foremost noticeable in the spongy feeling when entering a turn. There are perceived load change reactions, but these are not actual load changes – rather, it's the "pre-tensioning" of the tire sidewalls for navigating the curve's radius. This can be compensated to some extent by increasing the tire pressure to the manufacturer's limits and then observing the wear pattern, but it eliminates any remaining comfort.

Of course, detractors immediately claimed that a material saving on the manufacturer's part was responsible. The problem is that there are no more brand-new, two-year-old Zero Nero tires that could be weighed. However, it's strange that these tires, with the same tire size from current production, are lighter than comparatively weighed Kumho Ecsta tires. The weight difference in the new condition was approximately 160 grams. When considering a set of tires, the weight differences in the Kumhos were less than 5 grams, while the Pirellis varied by over 20 grams.

Hutfahrer wrote:

Common sayings also suggest that for some time now, the sidewalls of the more sporty Pirelli series have become noticeably softer. Several late-teen/young adult dynamic drivers ("hotshots") have been complaining about this for about 1.5 years. It is first and foremost noticeable in the spongy feeling when entering a turn. There are perceived load change reactions, but these are not actual load changes – rather, it's the "pre-tensioning" of the tire sidewalls for navigating the curve's radius. This can be compensated for to some extent by increasing the tire pressure to the manufacturer's limits and then observing the wear pattern, but it eliminates any remaining comfort. Naturally, heretics immediately claimed that a material saving on the manufacturer's part was responsible. The problem is that there are no more two-year-old Zero Nero tires in brand-new condition that could be weighed. However, it's strange that these tires, with the same tire size from current production, are lighter than comparatively weighed Kumho Ecsta tires. The weight difference in the new condition was about 160 g. In sets, the weight differences in the Kumhos were less than 5 g, while the Pirellis varied by more than 20 g.

Hi,
Thank you, that's quite an interesting piece of news. Already for 1 1/2 years?
I should have noticed it sooner, because the ball joints on my front axle usually only last about 5 months (around 15,000 km), so I've had a few replacements already.
I suspect that you might only really notice the difference when you have the Pirellis with a mixed compound on all four tires. For the past 2 or 3 years, I've had Pirellis on all four tires.

Best regards,
Jörg

Hutfahrer wrote:

Experiences from my rally driving days: The rear axle should be stiff, but not rock hard. Excessive body roll on the rear axle can, in extreme cases, trigger weight transfer reactions – usually when you don't expect them. Potentially dangerous! A rear axle that is too stiffly sprung reduces the possible cornering speeds, but is generally easier for most drivers to handle... If you want something that is comfortable to drive but still feels dynamic, you will want to allow as much suspension travel as possible with a "softer" spring, while trying to dampen the vehicle's movements with a stiffer damper setting. . . .

Update:

Just now, I replaced the front shock absorbers in our village workshop, together with a mechanic, with the "Sport" version. They fit perfectly, and even when manually compressing and extending them, the Sport parts are noticeably softer than the Cupra shock absorbers – so a change in the desired direction. How well they perform in everyday use will become clear over the next few weeks.

The rear suspension was impressive, featuring springs and dampers that are Cupra-specific parts (6LL...). The sport dampers apparently have a higher gas pressure, but they don't feel noticeably softer than the standard Cupra dampers. Furthermore, they are about 2 cm longer when fully extended, which makes the combination with the Cupra springs somewhat risky. Because when the rear suspension is fully extended (with the sport dampers), the Cupra springs no longer have any pre-tension and can therefore rattle between their bearings, become misaligned, or, in the worst case, even come loose!

Now I finally understand how the Cupra suspension is set up: it has shorter, stiffer springs than the other 6Ls, but the damping isn't noticeably harder. This means the car doesn't sit as high when unloaded, and it doesn't sag as much into the springs when loaded.

Due to the mentioned problems, we did not replace the rear shock absorbers today. If we do replace them, I will only do so together with appropriately sized springs.

The front axle is particularly important for the overall comfort. A stiff suspension and harsh ride there can be directly felt in the steering, and that's likely what you'll find most annoying.

"Why don't you drive it for a few days with this slightly 'softer' front axle first? I would only adjust the rear axle if I'm still not happy with the overall feel. A properly set up rear axle is essential for cornering. Any body roll should be minimized there before it significantly affects the handling and driving/steering feel."

Hutfahrer wrote:

The front axle is particularly important for the overall comfort. A stiff suspension and harsh rolling characteristics there can be directly felt in the steering, and that is exactly what you might find annoying. "Why don't you drive with the now slightly 'softer' front axle for a few days?

I would only adjust the rear axle if I still don't like the overall impression. That's exactly what it's leading to: for example, the front axle now rolls up onto low curbs in a reasonably acceptable way, but the rear axle still jumps up -> it's simply disharmonious."

Quote:

For cornering, a properly controlled rear axle is essential. Body roll should be minimized there, before it significantly impairs the handling or the driving and steering feel.

I don't think softer springs will reduce body roll, because the stabilizer bar is represented by the torsional stiffness of the rear axle housing: and that remains unchanged.

Here's a brief conclusion:

Meanwhile, the rear suspension has also been upgraded with springs and dampers from the Sport-FW model, and now you can at least feel a little bit more ride comfort overall.
The handling has not noticeably worsened (within the scope of my usual routes and, outside of urban areas, with a rather brisk driving style) .

What kind of tires are you actually using?

Hutfahrer wrote:

What kind of tires are you using?

Summer and winter tires, both 205/45 R 16: that's already the maximum sidewall height for the car (originally, it comes with Cupra design alloy wheels with 205/40 R 17 tires, which are, of course, even stiffer ).
Smaller rims than 16" will not fit due to the 312mm OEM brake .

You can still do quite a bit with tire pressure! However, the range of possibilities is probably not very large for a tire size of 205/45 R16.

I'm looking forward to trying out my 185/65 R14 winter tires ("balloon tires"). They'll be going on in about 2 weeks (or later, depending on the weather). I'll see how my suspension setup performs with these tires, which are almost standard.

Do the Cupra and Sport trims really only differ in terms of comfort settings? I expected there to be more differences.

Hutfahrer wrote:

You can still do quite a bit with tire pressure!

Although the range of possibilities for a 205/45 R16 tire probably isn't very large.

Quote:

I tend to use a higher pressure (for fuel efficiency and to avoid having to top it up every week), but I'm happy with the current "comfort" level.

Do the Cupra and Sport trims of the FW really only differ in terms of comfort settings? I expected more differences. } Hmm, the Cupra parts are identifiable on the 6LL... initially: on the 6L, mainly the dampers all around and the rear springs.
Okay, the bump stops and silent blocks for the front lower control arms and rear body are also 6LL parts.
But in a direct, everyday comparison between the Polo 9N with its original sport suspension and the Ibi Cupra, I don't really notice much difference.

However, the Polo already uses the full-material rear control arm bearings from the A2 TDI, which are essentially the same as those used in the Cupra. While they don't squeak and groan on uneven surfaces like the semi-hollow, flimsy standard parts, they transmit strong vibrations into the entire body at speeds below approximately 1300 rpm in higher gears.
Regarding steering precision and similar aspects, I didn't notice a significant change when I modified my 9N back then... although I wouldn't rule out that, for example, rally drivers might feel more noticeable differences.

Thank you for the detailed description!

While we're on the subject:

Why do (almost) all "conscious" drivers prefer stiff suspensions, or what advantages do they offer compared to more comfortable setups without excessive body roll (which would be considered underdamped)?

AFAIK, you can achieve less body roll with stiff stabilizer bars, without the actual springs/dampers needing to be rock hard.

If you are free from all fear, then you can also drive fast in those high-bodied, terribly twisting French cars of the 70s and 80s! Or what else explained the driving feel of the already buttery-soft Alfa bodies of the 33 or 45? Whoever can drive such vehicles fearlessly, precisely, and still quickly, can also successfully race a production vehicle in rally sports. I competed in amateur competitions for two years with a Golf 2 Synchro (modified according to Group N)...

For most hobbyists who modify suspensions, the goal is usually just one thing: the largest and widest possible tires, combined with maximum lowering. However, the suspension travel, which is often present in good suspensions, is usually limited by the end customer, either through the use of bump stops or by adjusting the suspension components (in the case of adjustable suspensions) in conjunction with the stiffest possible dampers, or by tightening adjustable dampers towards a "zero-spring" setting. The sole aim is to prevent contact between the tires and the body. If the free movement is not sufficient, then the suspension travel is largely restricted to prevent this.

However, suspension travel is important for maintaining the maximum possible downward pressure of the wheels on the road surface for as long as possible. Stiff suspensions with little or no remaining suspension travel can actually only be driven safely on smooth surfaces. Depending on the tires used, a very stiff setup will typically wear out faster than a vehicle with ample suspension travel. Vehicles with very little suspension travel, on the other hand, are easily affected by even a small stone on the road.

Tires are also a good topic: The limited influence of the tires (low rolling resistance, stiff tire sidewalls, etc.) is important to me for steering precision, but conversely, they also provide good feedback from the front axle. This is already taken into account in many production vehicles through the use of low-profile tires. On the rear axle, you also don't want the tires to have a life of their own. If I have to "preload" the tire sidewalls for cornering because everything is working against each other...

The amount of suspension travel is perfectly adequate for normal driving in my old car. I've reduced the body roll by installing the strongest standard stabilizer bar and plastic bushings. Since the standard shock absorbers were too bouncy for me (and the rear ones were also quite worn), I switched to Koni. With Koni, I was able to get shorter rear shock absorbers designed for lowering the car, so I still have the full suspension travel. The lowered ride height is also practical with only a few limitations; I just need to be careful in parking garages or when driving over obstacles to avoid excessive suspension compression.


My fun car, a Citroen Saxo VTS (1.6 16V), will also get the same program during the winter months. However, it must not be lowered, and no modifications should be visible from the outside. I would like to replace the slightly wider accessory alloy wheels with 15-inch steel wheels if possible. On my wish list: a thicker stabilizer bar, plastic stabilizer bushings, reinforced strut mounts, and Koni shock absorbers all around. The springs in the front will remain unchanged, and the rear ones are torsion bar elements anyway.

Right now, the amount of body roll during cornering is too excessive. I get very little feedback from the front axle through the steering, and the power steering gives the feeling of stirring something thick. The forces required to accelerate out of corners are not sufficient for me. I have to be careful with the rear axle, which has very little weight on it and tends to develop a life of its own, for example, if you enter a slightly damp highway exit too quickly. Many have ended up spinning out for this reason; a rear axle that initiates acceleration during overtaking is difficult to control in a Saxo. Most often, the reaction comes too late, or the spin-out is initiated by overreacting.

Hutfahrer wrote:

When you are free from any fear, you can drive those high-bodied, terribly twisting French cars from the 70s and 80s quickly! Or what else explained the driving feel of the already buttery-soft Alfa bodies of the 33 or 45? Whoever can drive such vehicles fearlessly, precisely, and still quickly can also successfully compete with a standard vehicle in rally sports.

That is to say, does a soft (undamped) suspension with stiff stabilizers have no driving physics advantages in "sporty" everyday use compared to the same car with the same tires and a stiff, track-focused suspension?

Quote:

For most hobbyists who modify vehicle suspensions, the goal is usually only one thing: the largest and widest possible tires, along with maximum ground clearance...

If the free movement is not sufficient, then the suspension travel is largely restricted...:argh:So, it's purely cosmetic tuning: a racing look that, thanks to higher rolling resistance and the inertia of wide tires and flashy rims, also reduces performance and increases fuel consumption.
Oh no, there's still a significant safety gain: over a given distance, you can no longer reach the OEM-standard speed, and the maximum speed decreases -> slower is safer

Quote:

.

Depending on the tires used, a very stiff suspension will typically wear out faster than a vehicle with a lot of suspension travel. Vehicles with little suspension are more likely to be damaged by even a small stone on the road. It's an interesting thought, imagining how a "poser" car with such a stiff suspension would drive through a curve, compared to a standard (and similarly equipped) OEM car. The normal car would make it through safely, but the "tuned" car would likely slide into the field.


} Thank you very much for the detailed description! }

Take a look at the "heroes" who show up to driving safety training with their customized cars, only to be shown by the instructors (who are often themselves amateur rally drivers) that their visually appealing creations are either completely undrivable, perform significantly worse than original equipment products, or have driving characteristics that are so dangerous they put inexperienced drivers at risk. Some of them finally wake up when they realize that their modified car, during the standard exercise of "swerving to avoid an obstacle on a slippery surface," immediately loses control and cannot be brought back under control by the driver.

High-legged, soft, and wobbly vehicles require intensive practice. You need to be able to understand and train with the vehicle's inherent movements. I learned this through participation in official driving safety training. Typical examples included the Seat Alhambra, Opel Frontera , or various vans. I was pleasantly surprised by the T4 (long version) despite its lack of engine power! The T5 models were consistently less capable.


My 206 has been to driving safety training twice in the past year, and only once this year. I requested two days as a birthday gift each time, and paid for one myself. The only drawback is the meager engine power. While the 206 isn't completely undemanding to drive, it's still enjoyable to drive, both in its standard configuration and in my modified version. This year, I had the chance to try out a 206 1.4 16V belonging to one of the participants. The only annoying thing was its ESP system; otherwise, the 88 horsepower engine performed surprisingly well, even with 175-size tires. Its steering provides less feedback, and you could clearly feel the car leaning on the tire sidewalls. This could be somewhat reduced by using the maximum tire pressure ("full load"). After that, it was very agile and safe to drive, and the lively engine was much more fun. However, the locking rear axle still triggers the ESP (too) early. I let her drive the same course in my 206. Although she didn't like the diesel engine at all, the suspension, brakes, and tires made her smile broadly after completing the exercises.


Fuer den Alltag wuerde ich bei Serienautos erstmal den serienmaessigen Stabi zu versteifen versuchen. Nicht immer ist ein dickerer Stabi verfuegbar oder man will ihn nicht extra kaufen. Dann lohnt ein Blick auf die Raeder und Reifen. Die komfortbetonten Reifen mit grosser Deckenhoehe sind seit einigen Jahren Geschichte, davor waren sie (leider) sehr verbreitet. Sollte man sowas haben, dann macht der Umstieg auf groessere Felgen und Reifen mit weniger Hoehe durchaus Sinn. Wenn es die Motorleistung zulaesst und die bisherige Reifengroesse einem ueberfordert erschien (oder nicht gefiel) wuerde ich ueber ca. 2 cm mehr Reifenbreite nachdenken. Beispielsweise einen Kleinwagen auf 195er stellen. Viel breitere Reifen fressen in Abhaengigkeit von der Motorleistung mehr oder weniger Fahrperformance. Too bad!

Typical examples of cars that, with just a change of wheels/tires, could transport you to a completely different world: the Golf 4 with 14-inch steel rims and 185-size balloon tires, or the Opel Vectra A, also with 14-inch rims and 175 or 185-size tires. Both cars gain significantly in steering precision simply by switching to 15-inch rims and just one centimeter more tire width, and can be thrown into corners without the constant whining of the tires. It's no coincidence that the most frequently ordered accessory rims for the Golf 4 were 15-inchers, and they were fitted with 195-size tires...